Heard Counsel for the petitioner. 

          The two revisions are almost identical in nature and as such they were taken together and are being disposed  by a common order.  The District Forum had ordered the present petitioner to refund excess deposited amount which is Rs.18,120/- in RP/3946/2010 and Rs.19,564.95 in RP/3965/2010 with 9% interest from the date of order till actual payment thereof.  In addition, Rs.5000/- was awarded towards mental and physical trauma and a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost.

          The order of the District Forum was challenged by the present petitioner before the State Commission by filing appeals with delay of 106 days.  The State Commission dismissed the appeals on the ground that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained.  Consequently, the appeals were also dismissed.

          The petitioner has come in revision against the said orders of the State Commission.  The reasons given in the condonation application are that the copy of the order of the District Forum was received on 16.2.2009 and the complainant had furnished the copy of the order on 11.2.2009.  The appeal was filed on 5.6.2009.  The explanation given for filing the appeal with delay of 106 days is that the Jodhpur Office of the Housing Board sent the case to Director Law, Jaipur on 13.2.2009 and it was examined by the Head Office from stage to stage and since costing aspect was involved, Financial Advisor of the Board was also consulted.  No details of stage to stage examination or dates are given nor it is stated when the matter was taken with Financial Advisor and when it was cleared by the Financial Advisor.  It is interesting to note that the petitioner has given further explanation that the staff of Board was           earlier detailed in election training and thereafter on election duty.  The period during which the staff was deputed is nowhere disclosed.  Does it mean that the Board stopped functioning when some of the staff working in the Board was sent for duty.  In case of matters which are pending in the Courts, no such explanation can be accepted.  The State Commission has very rightly held that no sufficient ground was given for condoning delay.  We fully concur with the findings of State Commission. 

          The Apex Court in the case of Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Mohan Lal, 2010 CTJ 121 (SC) (CP)  has made following observations in para 4 & 6 which have material bearing in the matter :

“4.  It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by Governments and statutory authorities are on the increase.  Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest.  They should be responsible litigants.  They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and high-handed manner.  They cannot behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives.  Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment.  They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner.  When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation.  Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected.

6.  Unwarranted litigation by Governments and statutory authorities basically stem from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers.  They are :

(i)                All claims against the Government statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest Court of the land.

(ii)              If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the Court and secure a decision.

The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the Governments or statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers-in-charge of litigation.  Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making or worse, of improper motives for any decision making.  Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision making to Courts and Tribunals.  The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the Government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby, eliminating unnecessary litigation.  But, it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone undertakes such an exercise.  The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigation.  Vexatious and unnecessary litigation have been clogging the wheels of justice, for too long making it difficult for Courts and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants.”

          In our opinion, the revision in question challenging the State Commission’s order on condonation is totally uncalled for frivolous and without any sound justification and unnecessary in view of the orders of Foras below.

            In view of the above, we hereby dismiss the revisions with cost of Rs.10,000/- each to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within eight weeks, failing which the Registry shall not register any revisions of the petitioner.